If you’re looking for an in-ear solution but don’t need a touring-grade system that’s as advanced and feature-rich as PSM 900 or PSM 1000, one of the new PSM®300 Stereo Personal Monitor Systems is most likely right for you.

Michael Johns, Product Manager for Shure PSM, explains the story of the two systems, as well as a few other distinguishing features.

P3TRA215CL

P3TR112GR

What’s with the two systems? Can you explain what type of user and application each system is meant for, and say more about the feature differences?

Both packaged systems were designed for entry-level in-ear monitor users such as bands and smaller institutions that own and operate their equipment. PSM 300 is configured in two ways: a standard system with a plastic bodypack ideal for bands just getting into IEMs, and a professional system with a metal bodypack ideal for rental houses and institutions such as houses of worship.

Mechanically, the biggest difference between the two systems lies with the bodypack receivers: the P3R and the P3RA. The P3R is a plastic pack with a streamlined user interface, and it can be powered only by AA batteries. When you open the battery door, you’ll see a seven-segment LCD that displays group, channel, and MixMode® settings. Then you have Group, Channel, and Scan buttons that, respectively, allow you to manually change the group and channel and do a scan. P3R also allows users to control stereo and MixMode capabilities.

The P3RA bodypack is metal, which makes it perfect for rental and house of worship environments where equipment tends to be handled more roughly. You can use it with either the Shure SB900 rechargeable battery or AA batteries. Also, because it has a menu-based LCD, we were able to offer some additional features accessible via menu-based navigation. For example, there are Radio, Audio, and Utility menus. Within each of these menus there are additional features, like high boost and low boost.

Another difference between the two systems is the earphones. Earphones are a really important part of an IEM system, by the way. A listener can take our top IEM system and use a cheap no-name earbud with it, and audio-wise, it’s only going to sound as good as that earbud. At a street price of $699 in the US, the P3TR112GR plastic bodypack system comes with our new SE112 Sound Isolating™ Earphones that we sell as a stand-alone for $49. The SE215, our $100 stand-alone earphones, are included in the P3TRA215CL metal bodypack system, which has a street price of $799. So, for $100 more, you get a more feature-rich earphone, a more feature-rich metal bodypack, and the potential savings from the rechargeability option. The rechargeable battery isn’t included, but for about $150, you can get a battery and a charger. If you’re a frequent PSM 300 user, then within a year, you’ll have saved in AA batteries what you paid for the rechargeable components. After that, it’s nothing but savings on batteries for the life of the system, which should be years.

P3RA Professional Wireless Bodypack Receiver

P3R Wireless Bodypack Receiver

Stereo monitoring is a new feature in our entry-level personal monitoring offering. What is stereo monitoring exactly, and what are its benefits over mono?

Generally, people who are using floor wedge monitors are getting a mono mix. In order to get a stereo mix, they’d have to be equidistant between two wedges, one panned hard left and one panned hard right. This never happens in real life. Receiving a stereo mix just isn’t possible without an in-ear monitoring system.

PSM 300 is our first entry-level IEM system to offer stereo monitoring. Why would you want a stereo mix over a mono mix, though? Honestly, a lot of it has to do with personal preference. For vocalists in particular, there are benefits to stereo mixes that you can build to sound exactly like a recording. If you’re able to hear yourself in stereo, then it’s easier to make fine adjustments in dynamics, pitch, and so on as you’re singing. For keyboards and horn players, too, it’s helpful to hear the vocal mix in stereo.

One of the huge technological benefits of transmitting in stereo is that it allows us to offer MixMode functionality on the bodypack for the user to control while performing. MixMode converts a stereo mix into two mono mixes that you hear in both ears. It gets transmitted in stereo, but the receiver treats it like two mono signals and puts them evenly in both ears. From there, you use the pan knob or buttons on the bodypack receiver to blend both mixes, emphasizing either vocals or instruments in both ears. That’s probably the biggest benefit to offering a stereo system.

Stage volume is a big concern particularly for houses of worship. How can PSM 300 help with that?

It can help in two ways: reducing the number of loudspeakers in the ambient environment, and allowing performers to play at a quieter level. They go hand-in-hand.

Houses of worship tend to have at least a pair of front of house loudspeakers, and sometimes a lot more. When performers use wedge monitors, which are also loudspeakers, the volume increases both onstage and in the congregation. When you’re using IEMs instead of wedges, the volume from those extra loudspeakers is eliminated.
Additionally, when musicians hear themselves via custom mixes delivered through in-ears, they aren’t turning themselves up to be heard over each other through their wedge monitors, so they’re not playing as loud. The same applies to vocalists. When they’re hearing themselves clearly and they’re fully occluded with a pair of Shure Sound Isolating Earphones, they won’t sing as loud, and they won’t strain their voices either.

In a nutshell, IEMs put loudspeakers in the ears of the performers instead of in the ambient environment, which means reduced stage volume.

PSM 300 features 24-bit digital audio. How is the sound quality different from that of an analog system?

This is a really important point. PSM 300 is neither a digital wireless system nor an analog wireless system. It’s what we refer to as a hybrid system. With PSM 300, we’ve chosen digital audio architecture being transmitted over analog RF because digital RF typically has latency.

For various reasons, latency in digital wireless microphones isn’t really an issue; however, with an in-ear monitor, latency is a no-go. When you’re transmitting in stereo, any existing latency theoretically doubles. Unlike a microphone, an IEM is for an audience of one. Being just a few milliseconds out of time can affect the ability to sing or play an instrument, so we replaced with an analog scheme the portion of the digital technology that creates latency. Everything else, however, is being done digitally.

Here’s how it works: analog audio enters the transmitter, gets converted digitally, and goes into this integrated circuit called an FPGA. The FPGA runs many little digital signal processing engines simultaneously, so it can do the companding, the equalization, the emphasis—everything needed in order to send a wireless signal over the air. That’s all being done digitally.

It’s not difficult to make really good sounding stereo systems, but it is difficult to make a really good low-cost stereo system because analog components that sound good are expensive. Using a digital scheme, however, to accomplish all the necessary things in the audio domain allows us to offer an affordable stereo system. Some of our competitors are offering affordable analog stereo systems, but they’re using low-cost analog components that compromise the dynamic range, the signal-to-noise ratio, and the overall sound quality. Our hybrid approach allows us to offer high quality digital audio with no latency, all at an affordable price, giving our customers the best of both worlds.

People are creatures of habit. They like what they’re used to, even if they know there’s a better solution. What can you tell people who are teetering on the edge of going in-ear but are nervous about making the switch? What’s on the other side of that anxiety that’s worth the leap?

There are some really significant benefits that are worth the learning curve. The portability aspect is huge, especially for bands that run their own sound and haul their own gear. You already have your axe, your amps, your drums, your keyboard equipment, and whatever other instruments you have. Wedge monitors weigh at least 45 pounds each. Why lug those when instead you could bring a PSM system with a transmitter that weighs 3 or 4 pounds, and receivers that only weigh a few ounces? It takes up much less of that precious cargo space in your van or your storage space, and it’s a lot easier on your back.

The second aspect is sound quality. As I mentioned earlier, IEMs are for an audience of one. Providing an individual custom mix directly to the ear of an artist will help him or her perform better. Along with that, there’s the benefit of hearing conservation. You don’t have to listen as loudly to hear what you need to do your part. You have control over the stage volume because you’re fully occluded with Sound Isolating earphones. You can still damage your hearing if you turn it up too loud, so you have to practice safe hearing protocols, but even so, the individual user is in control and not at the mercy of anyone else’s volume needs.

The third reason—and for some musicians, this is the most important reason—is the mobility aspect. On today’s major tours, like U2 with the stage that moves 360 degrees, P!nk hanging on velvet ropes, and Taylor Swift hanging off a suspended Model T that moves around the entire venue, production coordinators are requiring audio guys to use in-ears. If you’re going to hang from a Model T on a truss, you can’t have a floor wedge monitor up there with you. Even if you’re an entry-level IEM user playing in a band or in a house of worship, you’re going to want to move around onstage. If you’re using a floor wedge monitor, you’re tethered to that monitor. If you walk away from your monitor to go talk to the drummer, for example, and you speak into your microphone, you’re not going to hear yourself as well because you’re not in front of your wedge.

PSM 300 debuted in October at WFX in Dallas and AES in Los Angeles, and it came away from AES with a ProSound Network Best of Show Award. What was that experience like, after seeing the product through from concept to completion?

This is the third PSM release that I’ve worked on. Launching PSM 900 got us back in the IEM product category, and following it up with PSM 1000 really entrenched us in the high-tier end of the category. For me, seeing PSM 300 come from its inception all the way to launch completed the metamorphosis of the Shure PSM category, from high-tier to entry-level. Now we have the 300, the 900, and the 1000, which all operate in stereo, and all work with rechargeable batteries. That’s a huge technological accomplishment for us, and a testament to Shure’s long-term commitment to the IEM category.

The hybrid architecture of PSM 300 reflects the technological innovations that we’ve made with wireless microphones as well. There’s a lot of crossover between what we’ve done with IEMs and what we’ve done with wireless systems. It was nice to win the Best of Show Award at AES because the manufacturers that exhibit at AES to me represent the best of the best. When ProSound scans all the booths at AES and picks us as one of the best, that says a lot about us, about how far we’ve come with the IEM category in the past five years. It’s cool.

Is there anything else about PSM 300 that people should know?

The new PA411 four-way antenna combiner works with PSM 300. It allows you to combine the RF antennas of, and provide power to, up to four PSM transmitters. That’s a really cool feature because with PSM 300, there are going to be situations in which people are using more than one transmitter—for example, a larger band with a dozen members and just as many mixes needs a transmitter for each mix. And you never want a bunch of transmit antennas next to each other in a rack.

PA411 is limited in that only works with up to 50 mW of power, but that’s fine with PSM 300, which operates at 30 mW. Using it gives you more RF stability, and with the flip of a switch, it allows you to power up all four units, which is a nice feature.

We have a four-way combiner that’s feature-rich and touring-grade, but it’s maybe double the price of the PA411. You’ll want the other combiner for PSM 900 and PSM 1000, but if you’re using PSM 300, then PA411 is a nice way to fully kit out your system.

Check out our video walk-through of a PSM 300 system setup and see how easy it is:

]]>http://blog.shure.com/psm300-the-story-of-two-systems-in-stereo/feed/210 Reasons Why In-Ear Monitors Are Better Than Wedgeshttp://blog.shure.com/10-reasons-why-in-ear-monitors-are-better-than-wedges/
http://blog.shure.com/10-reasons-why-in-ear-monitors-are-better-than-wedges/#commentsWed, 11 Feb 2015 18:00:19 +0000http://blog.shure.com/?p=24028Remember that time you had a great live sound experience with wedge monitors? You could hear all your cues without turning up the volume to eleven. The monitor engineer responded instantly to your requests. And there was zero feedback.

No? You’re not alone. In-ear monitoring arose out of the need for a safer and better-sounding onstage experience. Read on to learn more about what it can do for you.

#1–Superior Sound Quality

The expression “garbage in, garbage out” applies here. If you’re using wedges and can’t hear yourself unless you turn up loud enough to damage your ears and interfere with the house mix, then nobody wins. Alternatively, in-ear personal monitors deliver consistently clear sound to you onstage, regardless of your venue’s limitations. When you can adjust your performance to reflect what you hear, it’s a better experience both for you and the audience. Your confidence as a performer will get a big boost too.

#2–Optimal Volume Levels

When using wedges, monitor engineers often end up in the middle of a volume war between the amplified and the unamplified. Singers, acoustic guitarists, and keyboardists can’t hear themselves over amplified electric guitarists and bassists, let alone over the drums. So, they ask, “Can you turn me up?”

“Maybe,” is the best the engineer can offer due to the limitations of power amplifier size, power handling of the speakers, and potential acoustic gain. If the room has bad acoustics, then peace is even less likely. With an in-ear personal monitor system, you’ll get studio-quality sound in a live-sound context. You can choose what you hear, and your engineers aren’t stuck waving the white flag.

#3–Elimination of Feedback

You know the sound of feedback: that intense buzzing whine that sends your hands to your ears. But what causes it?

Feedback happens when amplified sound from a loudspeaker is picked up by a microphone and re-amplified. This often occurs on crowded stages where microphones and monitor loudspeakers are too close together. When your whole band asks the engineer to turn up their mics, feedback is inevitable. In-ear personal monitor systems make this scenario moot. They seal the “loudspeakers” in your ears, breaking the feedback loop.

#4–Hearing Health

Chronic exposure to the high sound pressure levels of wedges can damage your ears permanently. Earplugs can help, but even the best plugs alter frequency response enough to muffle the audio. In-ear monitors both protect your ears from outside noise while simultaneously delivering only the sounds you need to hear. With the controls in your hands, you can adjust the volume to a safe level. It’s by far the healthier option.

#5–Reduced Vocal Strain

The most powerful singer is no match for an amplified guitar turned way up, or even a drum kit as-is. When singers can’t hear themselves over the stage mix—which often happens with wedge monitors—they push their voices too hard, damaging vocal chords and shortening singing careers. In-ear personal monitors allow you to hear yourself clearly when you sing, and you won’t have to scream over guitar amps and wedges. In addition to your own vocals, you can include in your mix as much or as little of the other instruments as you want.

#6–Stereo Monitoring

A distinct advantage of most in-ear monitor systems over wedges is the ability to listen in stereo. Our ears are made for stereo listening, so a stereo mix is more like a natural listening environment. When you’re able to listen to a natural-sounding mix, you’re more likely to listen at a lower volume. This means healthier ears over the long term.

#7–Clean Audience Mix

Wedges are directional at high frequencies, but they become omnidirectional at low frequencies. Why that’s bad: when wedges are turned up, low-frequency bleed from the backs of the units can muddy the house mix and make vocals unintelligible to the audience, especially in smaller venues. When you use in-ear monitors, the front-of-house engineer can concentrate on delivering the best possible audience mix without having to factor in bleed from the stage mix.

#8–Portability

If you play an amplified instrument or drums, then you’re no stranger to schlepping gear. Amps weigh around 55 pounds each. Wedges weigh about 45 pounds each. The more of those you have, the larger the vehicle you need, and the more you’re spending on gas. A complete in-ear monitor system fits in a briefcase, with no extra schlepping, vehicle space, or gas required. Plus, getting rid of wedges and speaker cables gives your stage a cleaner, more professional look, which matters if your gigs are weddings, worship services, and corporate events with different aesthetic standards than the average night club.

#9–Mobility

When you use wedge monitors, you’re limited to a sweet spot onstage where the mix sounds as good as it gets. Move a little to the right or left, and things go downhill. Why? Because loudspeakers are directional. Using in-ear monitors, on the other hand, is like using headphones: the sound goes where you go. So, if you want to play to the crowd on either side of the stage, you hear the same mix wherever you go.

#10–Personal Control

Perhaps the most empowering part of in-ear monitoring is having direct control over what you hear. You’ll still rely on the monitor engineer for fine adjustments, but you can adjust the volume using the knob on your bodypack, and you can choose different mixes yourself.

If you use a stereo mix, you’ll hear the same thing in both ears, but you can pan left and right to hear more or less in either ear. If you use a system with MixMode®, you’ll hear a summed mix in both ears. From there, you can use the bodypack controls to adjust the balance of the sound sources. For example, you might want vocals and guitar in the left ear, and drums and bass in the right.

Shure Personal Monitoring

Check out our entire line of personal monitoring systems on shure.com. If you’re just getting started, or you’re running your own sound in clubs or at a church, PSM®300 might be the right option for you. For large pro tours, PSM®900 and PSM®1000 are more appropriate. We also offer a wired personal monitor, P9HW, for drummers and keyboardists who want the in-ear sound quality but don’t need the mobility of a wireless in-ear system.

P.S. Huge thanks to Shure Systems Support Manager Gino Sigismondi for doing the heavy lifting in writing this with me.

]]>http://blog.shure.com/10-reasons-why-in-ear-monitors-are-better-than-wedges/feed/2The New 5575LE Unidyne and The Story Behind Ithttp://blog.shure.com/the-new-5575le-unidyne-and-the-story-behind-it/
http://blog.shure.com/the-new-5575le-unidyne-and-the-story-behind-it/#commentsFri, 19 Dec 2014 16:25:37 +0000http://blog.shure.com/?p=23745The new 5575LE Unidyne® 75th Anniversary Vocal Microphone is a classic beauty. As such, it’s easy enough to appreciate its iconic design and superior sound quality without any context at all. For the true mic geek, however, the historical details make the obvious beauty shine that much brighter. So, here they are. (Truth: We love to geek out over them too.)

Who invented the original Unidyne Model 55 series?

In 1939, newly out of college, Shure Associate Benjamin Bauer developed the Uniphase Principle, which allowed the achievement of a cardioid polar pattern using only one microphone cartridge. Prior to this, achieving a cardioid polar pattern required electronically combining two separate microphone cartridges: one omnidirectional and one bidirectional. Problems with the old way of achieving a cardioid polar pattern included inconsistent polar patterns and frequency responses. Plus, these dual-cartridge microphones were often cumbersome and delicate. This breakthrough earned Bauer, an immigrant from Odessa via Havana, his first of over 100 patents for audio technology.

What does “Unidyne” mean?

The name has multiple layers of meaning. The uni part is for three things: unidirectional, the single mic element, and the uniqueness of the product. The dyne part refers to the dynamic mic element as well as to the dyne, which is a unit of force used in acoustical measurement.

What inspired the design?

The Art Deco-style design is an homage to automobile grilles of the late 1930s, like that of the 1937 Oldsmobile Six Convertible Coupe.

How did it become such an iconic presence?

The Model 55 was available in three versions: the 55A, a low-impedance version for broadcast applications; the 55B, a medium-impedance version for public address and recording applications; and the 55C, and high-impedance version for two-way radio applications. Its design caught the eye of iconic performers like Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, and Ella Fitzgerald, as well as heads of state. Through that exposure to the public, the microphone gained recognition as both a cultural presence and a sign of quality.

What’s the significance of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Milestone Award?

This award was presented to Shure in January 2014 for the Unidyne technology, which puts Shure in the company of the most influential inventors in the realm of electrical, electronic, and computing of the past 200 years, including Guglielmo Marconi, Nikola Tesla, Michael Faraday, and Benjamin Franklin.

Shure Unidyne Microphones, then to now

Are any other Unidyne microphones still in production?

Is the 5575LE an exact replica of the original Unidyne Model 55?

We made painstaking efforts to manufacture the 5575LE in accordance with the Model 55’s original design concept. A lot of advancements in microphone technology have occurred since 1939, though, so we tried to strike a balance between honoring the aesthetic of the original and delivering the best sound quality possible. The microphone element is a Unidyne III, the same one used in the SM58. Additionally, we made some mechanical updates to improve the structural integrity of the product.

A 5575LE Unidyne and an original Model 55 Unidyne side by side

How can I get one?

For a limited time, the 5575LE will be available from Shure Authorized Dealers. Additionally, you could enter to win one of ten we’re giving away. Learn more about the 5575LE giveaway…

For tons more information about the history of the Unidyne, download The Unidyne Story, a 48-page brochure carefully compiled by Shure historians.

]]>http://blog.shure.com/the-new-5575le-unidyne-and-the-story-behind-it/feed/05 Things To Know About QLX-D Digital Wirelesshttp://blog.shure.com/5-things-to-know-about-qlx-d-digital-wireless/
http://blog.shure.com/5-things-to-know-about-qlx-d-digital-wireless/#commentsWed, 10 Sep 2014 22:10:05 +0000http://blog.shure.com/?p=17306The Shure wireless catalog is growing, which is great news because it means more options. By the same token, if you’re shopping for a wireless system, it can be a challenge to figure out how much system you need, and which features are the most important. So, the more choices you have, the more confusing things can get.

QLX-D™ Digital Wireless, our newest digital wireless system, is now available, so I sat down with Mu Yang from the product development team to get a sense of who it is (and isn’t) for, and how it compares to some of our other systems.

We say that QLX-D is ideal for mid-size events and installations, and for customers who need high-tier quality sound on a smaller budget. So, a two-pronged question: what are mid-sized venues and installations? And, when you have to cut some feature options to keep a system within a price range but without compromising sound quality, how do you decide what to cut?

QLX-D is for corporate events, live music performances, higher education, high schools, houses of worship, hotels and conference centers—lots of applications. Then again, so is ULX-D® Digital, our higher-tier system. Who should use which system is a question of scale, so that’s where the “mid-size venues and installations” designation becomes important.

In a corporate context, mid-size would mean that you’d want to use all the receivers on the same floor of a building, and on the same network. QLX-D is the right solution for that context. If you have multiple floors and each has its own network, or you’re dealing with multiple corporate or university campuses, then that’s a larger scale operation for which ULX-D is a better solution.

For live music performances in a small- to medium-size concert hall, QLX-D is appropriate, but if you’re talking about a live music performance in a huge stadium, then UHF-R® or Axient® are more appropriate solutions because they’re designed with larger venues in mind. In designing QLX-D, we cut the features for large-scale systems while retaining the same audio quality, reliability, and RF performance.

Even though it’s streamlined compared to ULX-D, QLX-D has a richer feature set than competitor wireless systems at its price point, including AES-256 encryption, IP networking capabilities, and rechargeable battery technology. Those features are huge for this tier product.

Let’s dig a little deeper into some of the key features that distinguish QLX-D from ULX-D. Comparing the spec sheets for the two, there are some specs in common and some specs that are different. Could you tie specs to applications so that people can better understand which specs are important for their application?

Thank you for asking this question! This is so critically important. In terms of audio quality, reliability, and RF performance, as we said, they’re the same. The key differences fall under two categories: network sophistication and RF flexibility.

Let’s start with network sophistication. If you have a third-party control device, most likely AMX or Crestron, then you use a console to control projectors, lights, microphones—everything—in your corporate board room, for example. If you want to use that system to control devices across subnets, then you have to use ULX-D. What does “across subnets” mean? It means across multiple networks, like if you have two floors each on separate networks. QLX-D can only communicate within the same subnet: one network on one floor.

An example in the education context: say you have a centrally located control room for all the devices on multiple campuses of a university. You have to use ULX-D for that since each building will have its own network. QLX-D only allows you to control devices within the same network. Also, ULX-D offers dual and quad receivers with audio summing, Dante™ digital audio networking, and dual Ethernet ports. QLX-D doesn’t have those advanced features. But, if you have a simpler network environment, with your gear on one rack, on one floor, using one network, then QLX-D is the right choice.

A few other differences related to network sophistication: ULX-D receivers have a very flexible user interface. Without having to look at the user guide, you can change all the parameters, like IP address, subnet mask, and gateways, on the receivers themselves. The display on QLX-D is simplified, so you can change the IP address and subnet mask, but you’ll probably need a user guide to know how. Also, with QLX-D, you can’t change the gateway, which is why the control string cannot communicate across subnets.

RF flexibility is the other key difference between QLX-D and ULX-D. QLX-D transmitters have two levels of output power: 1 and 10 milliwatt (mW). ULX-D bodypack and handheld transmitters offer a 20 mW output option in addition to the 1 and 10, so three options total. ULX-D at 20 mW output can give a 3 dB hotter signal than QLX-D. That’s useful in exceptionally rough RF environments because it gives you a better carrier-to-noise ratio.

Additionally, ULX-D offers a High-Density Mode feature that’s not available with QLX-D. High-Density Mode allows ULX-D to use up to 47 channels in a 6 MHz TV channel in the US. In Europe, it can use up to 63 channels in an 8 MHz TV channel when in High-Density Mode. Who needs that? Anyone running large-scale corporate conferences with a central location and breakout rooms—say, 30, 40, or 50 breakout rooms in which everyone is simultaneously using wireless microphones. In that scenario, ULX-D is the ideal choice.

These sound like obvious conveniences, but could you elaborate a little more on each?

When we talked to audio pros around the world who use wireless systems in mid-size venues and installations, we discovered that their knowledge of RF frequency coordination varied widely. So, we quickly realized that we needed to make a product that customers could successfully set up and use, and that would make RF decisions for them automatically.

For example, users may have a general understanding of what the Scan feature does on a receiver, but they may not know what to do with the information provided by the scan. QLX-D can perform a scan on a single receiver and find the compatible channel for that receiver. The user only needs to press a button two times: Menu, Enter, and done. This takes two or three seconds, and the product makes the RF decisions for the user. Compare this to a major competitor’s product, which has a Scan feature that includes five or six steps, and requires the user to make three or four RF decisions along the way. This product requires a much greater understanding of RF coordination, and it takes longer to set up. On the other hand, using QLX-D is as easy as using your TV, or radio, or cell phone. You press the button. You don’t have to make RF decisions.

Relatedly, Network Scan allows users to coordinate the frequencies of up to 60 channels in about 15 seconds. This is excellent in live performance applications in which you find the open channels and assign all the frequencies to the receivers the day before. Then, a half-hour before the show, you find that some frequencies don’t work anymore because the RF environment has changed with all the new devices in use by security personnel, TV stations, and others who weren’t there the day before and who are now creating a lot of RF interference for you. If you do a network scan, the receiver automatically coordinates the frequencies in about 15 seconds based on the new RF environment. This is a huge time-saver.

About rechargeability: QLX-D can use both AA batteries and the SB900 Shure Lithium-ion Rechargeable Battery. You can charge the SB900 at any time without discharging it first. There’s no memory effect. Also, there are a variety of charging options: we offer an eight-bay charger, a single-battery USB charger, and the dual docking station to charge the transmitter with the SB900 installed. It charges quickly, too: 15 minutes of charging gets you an hour of use. One hour gets you halfway charged (approximately 5 hours). Three hours gets you to the full charge of 10 hours. With AA batteries, you get up to 9 hours of use, which is slightly less, but say your SB900 is dead and you have zero time to recharge, you can pop the AAs in and be good to go.

Besides the longer runtime and the cost savings on batteries over time, the rechargeable battery has another advantage over AA batteries. The receiver displays remaining runtime in hours and minutes with an accuracy window of 15 minutes, so you’ll always know exactly how much juice you have left in your SB900. Which is just. So. Cool. When you use AA batteries, there’s a five-bar display, but if you’re down to one bar, you don’t know if that means 30 minutes left, or 60 minutes. That could mean the difference between getting through an event and not. With the SB900, you’re armed with much more knowledge of how much runtime is available to you.

As the available spectrum becomes more and more limited, efficiency becomes more and more important at all market tiers. What makes QLX-D particularly efficient in this regard?

In the US, where QLX-D has a 64 MHz tuning bandwidth, we’ve put 67 preset compatible channels in the system. If you use Shure Wireless Workbench® software with QLX-D, you can easily tune to more than 100 channels. The QLX-D customer most likely won’t need to use that many channels very often, but the capability is there. In the US, with QLX-D, you can use 17 channels in 6 MHz of spectrum, which is a lot, and plenty for the mid-size venue and installation types we discussed earlier.

Last but not least, QLX-D offers AES-256 encryption. Who would need this feature? How does this encryption technology differ from other kinds?

More and more users need this. For example, in boardrooms where confidential information is being shared, users need to know that no one else can hear their conversation. Same thing in government applications in which sensitive information is being discussed. Universities have gravitated toward using this feature too. AES-256 encryption has been around for over 10 years, and nobody has successfully hacked the encryption. It’s the highest standard of encryption available. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, has validated the encryption technology in QLX-D and ULX-D, so users should feel reassured by that.

Anything else people should know about QLX-D?

The metal construction of the bodypack, handheld, and receiver chassis and front panel make them more durable than if we had used plastic. [In the interest of full disclosure, the handheld has a plastic battery cover and antenna dome, but otherwise, it’s metal.] Also, the new rackmount gear is very sturdy and is included with the system rather than sold separately. We shipped the rackmounted receivers all over the world as a test, and they came back just fine.

]]>http://blog.shure.com/5-things-to-know-about-qlx-d-digital-wireless/feed/2How I Chose My First Live Vocal Michttp://blog.shure.com/how-i-chose-my-first-live-vocal-mic/
http://blog.shure.com/how-i-chose-my-first-live-vocal-mic/#commentsTue, 13 May 2014 13:02:28 +0000http://blog.shure.com/?p=14863After taking just enough voice lessons to be dangerous (six, to be exact) and performing with some very patient folks here at Shure HQ, I’m starting to explore the music world that lives in nooks and crannies around Chicagoland…and lo and behold, the time has come for me to buy a live vocal mic.

Luckily, I work with a slew of people who are massively overqualified to help me with that.

Dean Giavaras and Travis Duffield of the Shure Performance / Listening Center hooked me up with eight live vocal microphones, from value-priced to high-end, dynamics and condensers, so I could experience for myself the differences between them and figure out which one I preferred. Granted, this preference is completely subjective. There isn’t a right or wrong answer. Even so, I hope you’ll find this journal of my experience useful if you’re wondering what exactly to consider when considering a vocal mic. So, without further ado…

For the test track, I chose something that spans my chest and head voice, and that goes loud and soft, just so I could hear how each part of my range and each dynamic level sounded with each mic.

Below are a few pointers from Dean regarding the setup, which he and Travis handled:

“Something VERY important to remember with this and any comparative listening exercise: the samples MUST be at (or very near +/- .5db) the same perceived listening volume, or you will almost always prefer the louder one. The input stage of whatever you listen through will need to be adjusted to account for differences in microphone sensitivity. In this case, recording the same clip through each mic one at a time, it also meant slightly adjusting the recorded clips for playback to compensate for minor performance irregularities. Slight differences in performance can also bias your perception when making a comparison like this. To assist with consistent timing and pitch, we had Allison sing along to a prerecorded track, which she heard through headphones.”

As you’ll hear in the sound clips they recorded of me singing into each mic, I’m an alto who spends most of her time in chest voice. When you listen, keep in mind that the files below are compressed, so you won’t hear exactly what I heard in the studio playback of the raw files on big fancy speakers.

One thing that caught me by surprise: what drove me toward the mic I chose wasn’t just the way it sounded. The way it’s shaped influenced me too.

The Comparison

PG58

When I moved from the PG58 to the SM58®, I noticed a difference in plosives (the sounds of P and B, for example). I tend to get all up in the mic’s business, to a fault. For a singer who doesn’t eat the mic, the PG58’s plosives might not be so pronounced, but for me, they made the PG58 less of a contender. Additionally, when I held the two mics, I noticed that I could hear the movement of the mic in my hand a little more with the PG58 than with the SM58. That’s somewhat moot in my case, however. I have a dance background, so I prefer leaving the mic in the stand so I can flail around. Plus, my hands get shaky from the adrenaline that goes with performing, so holding the mic feels awkward to me. I’ll hold it if that’s what’s best for a particular song, but it’s not my favorite flavor. If you like to hold the mic in your hand or in the stand all the time, though, then you should definitely do that when you test potential vocal mics so you can determine your comfort level with those extra little sounds.

SM58

While I’m singing, I love the SM58 for the same reason every other fan of it loves it: it sounds like me. What I hear from the mic and what I hear in my head as I’m singing sound the same. This is incredibly comforting in the moment. But when I heard the SM58 track played back, I felt differently. If your voice is weaker on the low end, then you might like the extra boost that the SM58 gives you in that range, but that’s not my weak spot. I need help brightening up the top end. Dean offered two related reasons for that extra low-end boost: one, the SM58’s pronounced proximity effect, as explained in the SM58 User Guide (see both the blurb about proximity effect and the frequency response diagram); and two, my aforementioned tendency to get a little too, er, proximate to the mic. Chances are, if you have better mic technique than I do and a different kind of range, my experience won’t apply to you, and, like millions of singers over many decades, you’ll swear by the SM58.

Still, I do like the SM58’s cardioid polar pattern. It’s more forgiving for wandering singers like me than a supercardioid. The genre of music I sing means the musicians who play with me aren’t so loud that I absolutely need a mic with a tighter polar pattern than rejects sound sources on either side of me. But. Were I to like the way I sound on a supercardioid mic enough (spoiler alert…), then I could be persuaded to focus more and wander less. If you’re playing with a loud band, though, you might want a tighter polar pattern so your mic is picking up more of you and less of all the shredding and wild drumming going on around you.

55SH

The 55SH…sigh. I wanted to love this mic because it’s so beautiful, but I felt awkward in front of it. It’s so big that I let myself sing all over it. Perhaps if I were more disciplined, I would have had a better experience of it. Dean explained that, in retrospect, we should’ve tried the Super 55, which is designed for singers, instead of the 55SH, which has a shaped frequency response better suited to speech applications. Oops.

BETA 58A

The first time I ever sang by myself in public outside of a karaoke bar, I used a BETA 58A®. It was a small café, and I was (again) eating the mic, so the sound person flew to the controls and desperately tried to lower the volume, but there was unfortunately no stopping me. My two friends in the front row confirmed: “Nice job, but maybe, er, back off the mic a little…” (D’oh.) My point: the BETA 58A is a dynamic, but it’s “hotter” than other dynamics. It’s also a supercardioid, so it’s less forgiving for wanderers than the SM58. That said, I really liked the BETA 58A in this go-round. It wasn’t as boomy on the low end as the SM58, and it gave me a little more detail on top. Plus, with a dynamic mic, you don’t have to worry about phantom power, so it should work just fine with your average dive bar’s ancient sound system. (Pretty sure that’s going to be my default venue.) Hmm, I thought, listening to the playback. We have a contender.

SM86

People around the office always call the SM86 our sleeper mic because it sounds amazing on so many voices. Before Shure introduced the KSM9, the SM86 was a go-to live vocal mic for many of our artist endorsers. After hearing colleagues rave about it for years, I expected it to jump out at me as The One. Verdict: it sounded good, but it didn’t stand out to me. Again, though, for a different type of voice and user, this mic could be the magic bullet.

BETA 87A

Next came the BETA® 87A. Like the SM86, it’s a condenser microphone, so it’s hotter and delivers a more detailed sound than a dynamic mic due to its extended frequency response. I thought it balanced out the low and high ends of my voice nicely, revealing the parts of the low end I like without overemphasizing them, and brightening up my upper register. After the take, I said, “Oooh. Yes.” And I quote. When I looked up at Dean in the sound booth, I saw the raised eyebrows that mean Heard that. He flipped on the intercom and said, “I liked that one best so far on you too. It’s funny that we thought the same thing completely independently.” That validation felt good. Ultimately, I’m the one who has to be comfortable with the way I sound on the mic I choose, but it felt reassuring to have someone with an expert ear agree with me.

KSM9

The details that came out with the KSM9 and KSM9HS were really nice. I heard nuances in dynamics and tone that I’ve never heard before…meaning, they made me sound better than I am. Dean noted that the KSM9HS has a tighter, more focused sound than the KSM9, which is more open and natural. He also pointed out that the KSM9HS is the best in this entire lineup at rejecting other sound sources like guitars, drums, et cetera. Alas, those top-of-the-line mics have the price tag to match. If I were a fancy singer playing in bigger venues, then I’d go for it, but I’m just starting out. And honestly, as Travis explained to me much more articulately than I’m recapping here, their features would be lost on the sound systems in the kinds of venues I’ll most likely be playing in (again: dive bars).

KSM9HS

Another thing that surprised me: I liked the shape of the grille on the SM86, BETA 87A, KSM9, and KSM9HS. That flat surface helped me focus on where to direct my sound. I’d never used a mic that didn’t have a ball-shaped grille, and though I am more or less used to it, I’ve always felt a little bit lost in front of it. I end up singing all over it, which isn’t the best technique. Because of the way the grille shape focuses me, I’m not concerned that the BETA 87A’s supercardioid polar pattern will be too unforgiving for me. But maybe I’m wrong that I’m too wandery for supercardioids with ball-shaped grilles: the other mic I liked, the BETA 58A, has a supercardioid polar pattern… Anyway, if I ever do play with loud bands, it’ll be nice to have the BETA 87A’s side rejection helping me cut through the ruckus.

The Wrap-up

My biggest takeaway: every singer has to do this for himself or herself. My choice might be good for you if your range and timbre resemble mine, and if you interact with the mic the way I do. For example, if we did the same experiment with a high soprano who has a lot of nasal resonance, and who prefers to hold the mic (Cheryl Jennison DaProza, I’m looking at you), she’d most likely prefer a different mic than I do. And heck, you might listen to my tracks and completely disagree with me on which mic sounded best. There isn’t a right answer here: only what feels right and sounds right to you as the singer. After all, you have to be confident in order to deliver your best performance, and if you feel confident in your gear selection, that’ll go a long way.

If you’re a singer in search of a microphone, go audition as many as you can! Visit a dealer or a recording engineer friend and test-drive a bunch of different mics. While you’re wailing away, listen, look, touch…but don’t taste. Somebody else probably already germed them all up, and really, isn’t that the reason a singer needs her own mic anyway? (Or mics, because I think I’m gonna get two: the BETA 58A and the BETA 87A…)

Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in this blog post are the author’s own. Sound is subjective; therefore, the author’s views on the suitability of each microphone for her voice should not be applied generally to other voices.

Recently, the editorial staff at TIME evaluated nearly 3,000 listening products. Partnering with a third-party research service, TIME combed through archives of expert reviews, product specs and media coverage to determine which brand offered the “true audio experience.”

The results? After surveying everything from budget earbuds to feature-rich DJ headphones, TIME rated Shure products at the top.

[BOOM.]

Shure products caught the researchers’ eye thanks to numerous glowing reviews from well-respected industry experts. Looking out for people who seek exceptional audio quality, TIME really took the…well…time to differentiate the celebrity-endorsed brands that are all about style from Shure and other brands that are all about substance. And that substance is sound.

In this our third year of sponsoring a week-long celebration of community music events that we call National Open Mic Night, our participating venue list is longer than ever. In previous years, when we announced the venues, folks asked us, “Hey, Shure, what about Club ABC in XYZville, huh?” And we loved it. Your ideas have helped us grow our venue list from 17 in 2012 to 29 in 2013 and now 48 in 2014.

If people at each venue share pics and videos on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram using the hashtag #OMN2014, then everyone can check out what performers across the country are doing.

Why do we do this, you ask? Because legendary performances happen on small stages with wired SM57 and SM58® mics in towns all over the country, not just in huge stadiums running Axient®. Because it’s a fun way to celebrate our company anniversary with folks who love music as much as we do. And, because it gives venues and performers the chance to test-drive our mics, so each venue gets a gear box for that purpose.

(Our anniversary is April 25, for the record, and we’re going to be 89. That’s a lotta candles. Guess we’ll need a bigger cake. Darn.)

Recently, we made ULX-D® available in the H50 band, so I sat down with Senior Manager of Shure Systems Support Gino Sigismondi to get a better understanding of the benefits of this new offering. Here’s what he had to say…

Allison WolcottCould you tell us a little bit about how the ULX-D line has evolved?

Gino Sigismondi Since its launch in January 2012, ULX-D Digital Wireless has become the “go-to” wireless system for mid- to high-tier users who need the combination of top-notch sound quality and high channel count. This, of course, includes sound engineers for touring musicians. It also includes those who handle audio for corporate conference spaces, hotel meeting facilities, houses of worship, educational institutions, and governmental organizations—the kinds of venues that also appreciate ULX-D’s scalability and encryption capabilities. In the intervening years, Shure has continued to develop the ULX-D line, adding dual and quad receivers, Dante™ digital audio networking, and, most recently, a fourth frequency band.

The availability of the H50 frequency band means that ULX-D systems now may be used in all parts of the UHF television spectrum in the U.S. (470 – 698 MHz). With the continued spectrum-crowding that wireless microphone users are facing, having more choices increases the likelihood that they will find clear frequencies for their systems.

AWWhy the H50 band specifically?

GS Initially, Shure offered ULX-D in three frequency ranges in the United States: G50 (470 – 534 MHz), J50 (572 – 636 MHz), and L50 (632 – 698 MHz). The 64 MHz tuning range allowed most users to find a fairly good number of open frequencies in most locations. But in certain crowded RF environments (think Los Angeles), where every open channel counts, the gap left between G50 and J50 meant several potentially useful channels that users couldn’t access. The H50 band, with a tuning range of 534 – 598 MHz, fills that gap. At this stage of the game, as we prepare for possible changes in spectrum availability after the Incentive Auction in 2015, any available spectrum is good spectrum.

AWWhere can customers use this band?

GS Visit www.shure.com/frequency to determine the ideal frequency band for your location, whether it be H50 or one of the other bands.

AWWith which ULX-D system configuration types is the H50 band available?

GS You can get H50 in any of the configurations Shure offers for ULX-D in the United States. These include handheld, headworn, instrument, lavalier, guitar, and various combo configurations. Check out the ULX-D Digital Wireless Systems product page on shure.com to view the available configuration types.

]]>http://blog.shure.com/ulx-d-digital-wireless-in-the-h50-band-faqs/feed/0Where Would You Wear It: The Shure Swag Giveawayhttp://blog.shure.com/where-would-you-wear-it-the-shure-swag-giveaway/
http://blog.shure.com/where-would-you-wear-it-the-shure-swag-giveaway/#commentsWed, 26 Mar 2014 13:27:58 +0000http://blog.shure.com/?p=14814As you emerge from the cocoon of your winter puffy coat, the first thing you’re going to think as you examine your spring look is this:

Nine lucky winners will get an exclusive Spring Break reprint of the NAMM 2014 tee-shirt.

One super-lucky grand-prize winner will get the tee-shirt, plus the hoodie that only our artist endorsers get, a mechanic’s shirt, a ball cap, a fancy backpack, a vintage Shure microphone ad poster, and a few more surprises, including one that’ll be music to your ears.

How to get in on this, you ask? Tell us where you’d wear your Shure swag. The gym? The pub? The gig? The sack? It’s all good.

Enter the drawing between March 26 and April 2, 2014. We’ll randomly draw the 10 winners and swag them out in style.

Fine print: to be eligible for a prize, you must be 18 or older and reside in the U.S. or Canada (minus Quebec). Limit one entry per person. Check out the Official Rules on shure.com.

]]>http://blog.shure.com/where-would-you-wear-it-the-shure-swag-giveaway/feed/4Fantastic Scholastic 10: The Post-production Phasehttp://blog.shure.com/fantastic-scholastic-10-the-post-production-phase/
http://blog.shure.com/fantastic-scholastic-10-the-post-production-phase/#commentsMon, 17 Mar 2014 18:49:05 +0000http://blog.shure.com/?p=14738The tracks are in. The judges are judging. And in this final series of Fantastic Scholastic 10 video diaries, the team members reveal a little of the secret sauce they used to create the best recordings they could using only Shure microphones.

(I knew I wasn’t hallucinating the paper clips on the piano wires in one of Berklee’s earlier videos. Turns out they were trying to simulate the sound of a certain South Asian instrument…)

As you’ll hear in the videos, the teams’ strategies ran the gamut from natural sound capture to an effectsapalooza, with a healthy helping of stairwell reverb in multiple tracks. They discovered new mics for familiar applications, and it’s fun to hear them explain which ones they liked for which applications and why, as well as what surprised them.

By the end of the competition, you can hear the tired in the students’ voices, but there’s a lot of pride and excitement in there too. Says one of the University of Lethbridge guys…

]]>http://blog.shure.com/fantastic-scholastic-10-the-post-production-phase/feed/0Reviews Roundup: Wireless Systems, Wired Mics & Listening Productshttp://blog.shure.com/reviews-roundup-wireless-systems-wired-mics-listening-products/
http://blog.shure.com/reviews-roundup-wireless-systems-wired-mics-listening-products/#commentsMon, 10 Mar 2014 20:30:00 +0000http://blog.shure.com/?p=14500These days, people don’t buy anything substantial without first jumping online and reading product reviews in forums, on shopping sites, and in industry publications. So, if you’re thinking about buying one of our newer products, check out the reviews roundup below, organized by product type. I’m sure you can find discussions of these products elsewhere online, but this will get you started. Happy reading!

Wireless Systems

BLX® Wireless reviewed in Mix Magazine
“The BLX Wireless System from Shure was designed to provide a professional level of audio and RF performance at an entry-level cost. Comprising three receivers and two transmitters, the BLX System enables easy setup and offers a choice of bodypack or handheld wireless transmitters. BLX bodypacks may be used with…” Read the full review in Mix Magazine

Microflex™ Wireless reviewed in Sound & Video Contractor
“In the business world, architects create workspaces that are practical, yet inspirational. If aesthetics didn’t matter, we would hold teleconference meetings in anechoic chambers and virtually eliminate the acoustical struggles we have in real-world boardrooms. But alas, we work with what we’re given—and if the budget permits, we call for sophisticated solutions…” Read the full review in Sound & Video Contractor

Wired Microphones

VP83F LensHopper™Camera-Mount Condenser Microphone with Integrated Flash Recordingreviewed in Videomaker and on The Location Crew
“The Shure LensHopper VP83F is a great product. If one needed a simple run and gun shotgun mic, look no further. It does everything it set out to do, and does it with intuitive design and quality construction. Shure has made its name making rugged, quality products and the VP83F is right on the money…” Read the full review in Videomaker

“I’ve been looking forward to trying out the Shure VP83F LensHopper camera mounted recording mic since it was released at NAB this year. It’s designed for the DSLR camera being small, battery powered, and using an 1/8-inch mini cable to connect to the camera. But Shure has taken it one step further by adding a built in recorder on the mic…” Read the full review on The Location Crew

“Compact is the word of the year. DSLRs have earned their spot as integral tools in the video production arsenal, and manufacturers are increasingly offering miniature cameras with professional cinematography features, such as the Pocket Cinema Camera from Blackmagic Design. Even with their outsized imaging capabilities, though, these smaller cameras have a weakness: audio recording…”Read the full review on Creative Planet Network

“Shure’s VP83 shotgun mic is a perfect fit if you are looking to record significantly cleaner audio than your on-board DSLR mic at an affordable price. The microphone plugs into the mic line on your camera and precisely captures the crisp audio you’re looking for. It only takes 1 AA battery which will power the mic up for up to 130 hours, about 4-5 days, which is awesome for…” Read the full review on ProductionHUB

Earphones & Headphones

SRH1540 Premium Closed-Back Headphones reviewed on Digital Trends, Music Connection, and in American Songwriter

“There’s no active noise-cancelling, no Bluetooth for wireless audio, no control cable with microphone. In fact, aside from some carbon fiber-backed ear cups, the SRH1540 don’t have much to cover in the features department. But if you’ve seen our score, then you already know that the SRH1540 can perform. In fact, they are the first headphone we’ve ever rated a perfect 10…” Read the full review on Digital Trends

“If it were not for my mix playing out of these new Shure SRH1540 headphones, I wouldn’t even know they were on my head. The very comfortable SRH1540s are closed-back headphones and feature lightweight construction and plush Alcantara™ ear pads. These circumaural headphones use an adjustable aluminum alloy headband…” Read Barry Rudolph’s full review on Music Connection

“The Shure SRH1540 premium closed-back headphones offer superior listening and monitoring for the professional engineer, musician, or music fan, with form and functionality that will provide years of pleasurable use. The SRH1540’s come with a large, heavy-duty carrying case that accommodates the headphones, as well as a replacement cable, spare ear pads, and a threaded ¼ inch adapter. Everything in this package is quality…” Read the full review in American Songwriter

“I listen to music seriously. Most of my albums are 256-bit encoded. My daily in-ears are custom-molded Ultimate Ears Personal Reference Monitors, an expensive piece of tech at $2000. So I’m used to quality audio at a premium price. The SE846s, this new pair of earbuds from Shure, clearly fall within this category. Yes, the thousand-dollar price tag may be too steep for the casual listener. But for the serious audiophile…” Read the full review in Popular Mechanics

“The Shure SE846 are something of a rare breed. While there are a lot of expensive headphones available, there aren’t many expensive in-ear headphones. But Shure has a long history with excellent headphones, not to mention with microphones and other audio gear. Judging from the specs and design, the SE846 look like they could be very interesting…” Read the full review in Forbes

“You guys know Shure; it’s best known as a microphone manufacturer, but millions of vinyl lovers have had long-term affairs with Shure’s phono cartridges. The company jumped into the earphone market in 1997 and focused on pro users—musicians and sound engineers—but audiophiles quickly got the word. Microphones, cartridges, and earphones have one thing in common…” Read the full review in Sound & Vision

“The Shure SE846-CL ($1,200) is the Audiophiliac’s In-Ear Headphone of the Year. The SE846 is a universal fit in-ear, but outshines the sound of my favorite custom molded in-ear headphones from…” Read the full review on CNET’s Audiophiliac blog

Finally, an unusual review: Henry Rollins, who has been a Shure artist endorser for years, was curious about the SE846, so we sent him a pair. Read what he had to say about them.

View images, descriptions, specs, and user guides of the the reviewed products on shure.com:

]]>http://blog.shure.com/reviews-roundup-wireless-systems-wired-mics-listening-products/feed/0Fantastic Scholastic 10: The Tracking Phasehttp://blog.shure.com/fantastic-scholastic-10-the-tracking-phase/
http://blog.shure.com/fantastic-scholastic-10-the-tracking-phase/#commentsTue, 11 Feb 2014 21:51:09 +0000http://blog.shure.com/?p=14164The ten U.S. and Canadian college teams participating in the tenth annual Fantastic Scholastic Recording Competition are done planning. Now, they’re all about tracking…and discovering whether their plans for mic selection, mic positioning, instrumentation, and everything else are panning out as expected.

Check out the video diaries of their tracking phase experience for a taste of what they’re up to, and what a challenge it can be to sit in the recording engineer’s chair (in case you forgot!). It’s February, and I’m in Chiberia, so my favorite moments in this batch of videos are the lighthearted ones, like the occasional group head-bop behind the board. Like the fleeting moments of laughter through bloopers that make the long haul seem a little less long. Like the dance party of one. Like the stairwell jam. And like hearing one track by itself, in all its vulnerability, then mixed with the rest of the arrangement…magic.

]]>http://blog.shure.com/fantastic-scholastic-10-the-tracking-phase/feed/0February Webinar: Maximizing Gain-Before-Feedbackhttp://blog.shure.com/february-webinar-maximizing-gain-before-feedback/
http://blog.shure.com/february-webinar-maximizing-gain-before-feedback/#commentsTue, 28 Jan 2014 18:08:47 +0000http://blog.shure.com/?p=14035“Is this thing on?” says, oh, EVERYONE when they step up to a microphone in the movies or on TV.

And what does the mic always say back? “ZZZZZZ!”

Feedback is the universal, audible indicator for “live microphone.” It’s also just plain annoying. If you’d like to avoid it, then check out February’s Shure Learning Center webinar.

Maximizing Gain-Before-Feedback in Your Sound System

“Gain-before-feedback” refers to how loud a sound system can be turned up before feedback occurs.

In this hour-long webinar, we will look at tools and techniques for maximizing gain-before-feedback, and bust some myths about less helpful approaches. Michael Pettersen, the resident expert at Shure on all things related to automatic mixers (including their history), will be on hand to add insights from his many years of experience.

We’ll cover the following topics:

The causes of feedback (Hint: it’s not the microphone!)

Potential acoustic gain

Using automatic microphone mixers

How feedback reducers work

As always, Shure Learning Center webinars are free to attend, and attendance is first come, first serve.

View archives of our webinars at your convenience on shure.com
]]>http://blog.shure.com/february-webinar-maximizing-gain-before-feedback/feed/0How NAMM Day One Went Downhttp://blog.shure.com/how-namm-day-one-went-down/
http://blog.shure.com/how-namm-day-one-went-down/#commentsFri, 24 Jan 2014 00:52:39 +0000http://blog.shure.com/?p=13915Like one of those churches that gets built in a day by an army of the faithful, the Shure booth at The NAMM® Show came together yesterday in a swarm of tightly coordinated activity. (We’re at Booth #6541, for those in attendance. Come say hi!) Shure Associates spent the day setting up display and demo modules, lugging boxes of tee-shirts to the reception counter, supervising the hanging of lights and video walls, creating meeting spaces, and being really glad we left behind the polar vortex in Chicago for warm, sunny Anaheim…and then…

*Crickets*

the calm…

before…

THE ROCK!

This morning, the doors opened, and soon enough, BLAM, that empty booth was packed with people test-driving products, entering giveaway drawings, showing off their Shure NAMM tee-shirts from years past, and fist-bumping with Shure Associates they’ve come to know and appreciate (Tim Vear, who practically signs autographs, I’m looking at you). Carpet was no longer visible. You could practically reach out and touch the energy.

Let me show you around the booth so you can kinda sorta be here with us even if you’re not here-here:

Now that you know your way around, let’s dive into what happened in all those booth hotspots.

The Tee-Shirt

No matter what else brought folks to the booth, everybody I met wanted a Shure NAMM tee-shirt. Shirts flew out of my hands as fast as I could say, “What size?” Props to my man Brent Burdick back at the office, who did a mighty fine job on the design this year, if I do say so myself.

Product Demos & Giveaways

Looking at gear online or in catalogs is great and all, but if you really want to know whether a piece of gear is going to work for you, nothing beats the experience of trying it out, or better yet, trying out multiple options and comparing what you hear. People lined up for the opportunity to do this at the demo stations for wired mics, personal monitor systems (PSM® 900 and PSM® 1000, specifically), earphones, and headphones. Watching singers bring it to the wired mic demos was especially fun. There are a lot of serious divas casually strolling around here, and it’s pretty sweet to see (and hear). Anyway, while everyone was experimenting, questions came up, so near each demo, Shure Associates with expertise in those product lines were available to offer advice. If you’re at the show and you need help with a demo (or anything else), just keep an eye out for somebody in this fine-looking shirt:

This year, we brought some new earphones and headphones for you to try out: SE112, our new entry-level earphones, SE846, our new top-of-the-line earphones, and SRH1540, which are premium closed-back headphones with a lightweight yoke similar to that of our SRH1840 open-back headphones.

There are Shure Associates in the booth who have stuck our earphones in more ears than I can even think about, so if you’re not sure how the cables are supposed to go, or how to get a good seal in your ear with the sleeves, they can hook you up. We have a blog post about the proper wear and care of Shure earphones if you’re not at NAMM and would like to know. Same thing with headphones: if you’re wondering about whether open backs or closed backs would work better for the application you have in mind, just ask. (And, as a matter of fact, we have a video about open back vs closed back headphones if you’re interested…)

Speaking of getting hooked up…if you’re at the show, you could win some of our new earphones. How? Ask at the reception desk at our booth.

Taking center stage among this year’s product demos was the GLXD6 Guitar Pedal Receiver with Integrated Tuner demo station. We’ve got three guitars and pedals set up for you to try, plus a couple of Shure Associate guitarists who can help you get oriented. In the video below, our very own Dave Mendez shows what you can do at the demo station. Stop by and shred away.

Guitarists who demoed the pedal receiver consistently remarked that the tuner was a great idea, that GLXD16 was a really smart system, and that the team who developed it had thought of everything. I know the folks on that team as colleagues and musicians, so in my head, I was high-fiving them all about the positive feedback that their passion and hard work generated today.

Get your badge scanned when you do a demo, and you’ll be entered to win a drawing for your very own GLXD16 guitar pedal system.

The Awards Buzz

While all this activity was swirling around the booth, the awards buzz was humming just beneath it. Three of our products were nominated for TEC Awards, which is a huge honor for us. You can read all about the products and the award in this blog post. Tomorrow night at the TEC Awards ceremony, we’ll find out if we won, so fingers crossed! Additionally, GLX-D® Digital Handheld Wireless Systems and SRH1540 Premium Closed-Back Headphones were nominated for ProSoundWeb Readers’ Choice Awards. It feels good when people who use our gear give it a thumbs-up that way.

The Incentive Auction of TV Broadcast Spectrum: An Update

Some folks who stopped by today had questions about the upcoming Incentive Auction that the FCC recently announced would be delayed from this year until 2015. From the calls our product support team has been receiving since the December 6 announcement, we knew it was on your mind, so I sat down with Mark Brunner recently and got some answers from him about what you can expect. He’s our go-to guy for advocating with the FCC on behalf of wireless microphone users. You can read my interview with him in this blog post.

More Shure News from NAMM

Throughout the show, we’ll be posting to Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, so please follow us there if you’d like to keep up with our latest news.

So, that was Day One! We’ll be here through Sunday, so if you’re at the show, please stop by the booth. We’d love to see you.

]]>http://blog.shure.com/how-namm-day-one-went-down/feed/1The Incentive Auction of TV Broadcast Spectrum: An Updatehttp://blog.shure.com/the-incentive-auction-of-tv-broadcast-spectrum-an-update/
http://blog.shure.com/the-incentive-auction-of-tv-broadcast-spectrum-an-update/#commentsMon, 20 Jan 2014 19:18:26 +0000http://blog.shure.com/?p=13909Technically, Mark Brunner may be the Senior Director of Global Brand Management at Shure, but most of us know him these days as Mr. Spectrum. For the past several years, he has led our advocacy efforts with the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of wireless microphone users. In this capacity, he has accumulated as many frequent flyer miles between Shure headquarters in Niles, Illinois, and Washington, D.C., as the average national touring rock star.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler made an announcement on December 6, 2013, that the 600 MHz band incentive auction originally thought to be slated for 2014 will be delayed until 2015. I sat down with Mark to learn how this will affect our customers in live music, houses of worship, education, government, and everywhere else Shure wireless microphones are used.

Wireless Spectrum Allocation: Then & Now

Allison WolcottYou’ve been on the front lines of the wireless spectrum allocation issue for several years. For those who might be just starting to follow this, when and how did it all begin?

Mark Brunner The transition in spectrum policy in the United States and globally has largely been the result of an increased demand for portable broadband devices (think smartphones and tablets), as well as a decline in the consumption of over-the-air broadcast TV. The transition in the use of spectrum has been a direct outcome of this change in consumption of content.

AWWhere are we now with spectrum allocation?

MB UHF spectrum allocation in the United States has undergone three major episodes. The first was the digital television transition, which enabled over-the-air broadcasters to be repacked into a narrower swath of spectrum when they moved to digital technology. This freed up a significant portion of the band to be offered at auction to telecom carriers and to be set aside for national public safety network implementation. This was referred to as the 700 MHz auction. Many wireless microphones had been utilizing the 700 MHz band, and those users had to retire the equipment once the digital television transition was completed in 2010.

The second major episode in UHF spectrum policy was referred to as the White Spaces docket at the FCC. The White Spaces docket contemplated shared use of vacant TV channels by new unlicensed devices and incumbent pro audio users, meaning wireless microphone users. Pro audio users always had the ability to utilize vacant TV channels to meet the needs of their productions, but the future world contemplated a shared access model to those open channels. To enable that to happen, certain technical protocols had to be put in place. The first protocols were the rules governing how these new devices would operate, and the second was a spectrum control system that was established in the form of a geolocation database. The databases essentially manage the traffic between the White Spaces devices and the incumbent TV and pro audio users.

The third major episode in the UHF spectrum evolution in the United States is where we are today, in what is known as the Incentive Auction of Television Broadcast Spectrum. The Incentive Auction is a novel approach that the United States government has adopted to repurpose more UHF spectrum for mobile broadband by incentivizing those remaining over-the-air broadcasters to relinquish their spectrum licenses completely, move to a digital television channel shared with another licensee, or to move to a “less desirable” channel, one that might not travel as far or have as high a coverage pattern. This type of incentive auction has never been attempted anywhere in the world. It’s highly complex. The amount of spectrum to be put up for auction is directly proportional to the number of broadcasters willing to reduce their future business in some way.

AWIs there going to be a fourth episode?

MB I don’t think so, but the federal government and the FCC reserve the right to revisit spectrum policy at any time. The continual increase in demand for portable consumer devices and wireless technologies of all kinds definitely has an ongoing impact on the government’s need to find spectrum for them. And it’s not just UHF: it’s all up and down the available spectrum.

The Incentive Auction: What’s At Stake

AWWhy is the FCC holding this auction?

MB The three goals of the auction are: number one, to free up more spectrum for mobile broadband, which will be used in a licensed model by telecom carriers who are familiar to us—most likely AT&T, Verizon, T Mobile, et cetera. The second goal is to fund the buildout of the nationwide public safety network originally recommended by the 9/11 Commission. That network will be in the 700 MHz band. The third goal is to allow deposits of any remaining proceeds into the US treasury, of course.

AWWhat is at stake for wireless microphone users?

MB Wireless microphone users need to be aware that the UHF spectrum situation is dynamic, and that the life cycle of their products may be affected by some of the changes. It also requires them to be much more conscious of who else is using the spectrum, and to pay more attention to coordinating their operations in areas of the spectrum that are available, legal, and uncongested by use from other devices.

AWThere was a previous auction in 2008 of the 700 MHz portion of the spectrum. What were some of the lessons learned from that?

MB One lesson is that once new users of the spectrum take possession of it, they’ll be interested in identifying those who might still be operating there illegally. So, it is not a good idea to be operating a 700 MHz band wireless microphone anymore, and those who are should cease doing so immediately. They will eventually be brought to the attention of the FCC for that operation because the new users of the spectrum are very interested in avoiding interference.

How Shure Is Preparing For What’s Next

AWFrom a product development perspective, how is Shure preparing for the possible outcomes of this next round of spectrum allocation?

MB Shure is providing more and more products in other bands than UHF. These products are designed for specific applications and perform very well in those applications despite some of the design challenges inherent in using unlicensed spectrum. Shure is also very focused on maximizing the number of wireless microphones that can be used in a smaller swath of spectrum. We’ve invested quite a bit in understanding what parameters can be accentuated to increase that channel count. So, this is a constant design objective and goal for our development community, and we have explored many new technologies that enable that higher channel count.

AWSo, up and down the Shure wireless product catalog, from the entry level to the elite…

MB Yes, we’re talking about PGX Digital, GLX-D®, ULX-D®, Microflex™ Wireless, and Axient®. Axient’s primary design goal was to be highly resistant to interference should it occur, and many of its design features allow it to detect and avoid interference: basically, to operate flawlessly in a hostile environment. On the other hand, ULX-D’s primary design goal was to achieve the highest number of compatible systems possible within a TV channel. So, for instance, in its high density mode, we can achieve higher than 45 simultaneous wireless links within a single TV channel. GLX-D uses the globally unlicensed 2.4 MHz band, so the user doesn’t even need to consider tuning that product to an open channel. It’s using the unlicensed spectrum in an automatic way where that concern is out of the hands of the user. PGX Digital, which operates in the 900 MHz range, similarly uses an unlicensed swath of spectrum so the user doesn’t need to be concerned with selecting the proper frequency. Microflex Wireless utilizes the unlicensed DECT spectrum, which was once widely used for cordless telephones and other office communication products. It takes advantage of that spectrum in a new and creative way to achieve a very high channel count in an unlicensed band.

Advice for Wireless Microphone Users

AWWhat should wireless microphone users do in order to prepare?

MB The most important research that someone considering a wireless microphone investment should do is to understand the intensity of the RF environment and the likelihood of that audio system growing or expanding in the future. That will lead them inevitably to certain product choices that can be affordable and appropriate for their needs but also optimized for the environment in which they’re operating. In gathering this knowledge, users may find the expertise of wireless microphone manufacturer personnel very helpful.

AWHow would you advise those who are in the market for a new wireless system during this latest spectrum action by the FCC?

MB Stay educated about what’s happening. We’re expecting some important communications to come out in the next three to six months, and these will help Shure formulate a plan for taking care of customers who have 600 MHz equipment that may at some point be illegal to operate. There are certain pieces of information that are critical for us to have in order to design customer programs, but we don’t have that information yet. At this point, we know that there is a spectrum auction slated for sometime in 2015, and that once that auction occurs, we’ll know which portions of the band will be going away, and how we’re going to be able to operate in the remaining space. Whatever the outcome, our goal is to come out of the incentive auction transition with customers feeling the same way they did after the 700 MHz transition. They appreciated the information we offered, as well as our ability to offer rebates and take gear that was no longer usable off the market and replace it with gear that is legal to operate.

AWWhat resources should people consult in order to stay informed?

MB The entire record of any FCC proceeding is available on the FCC website in what’s known as the ECFS, or Electronic Comment Filing System. The Incentive Auction docket number is 12-268. There you’ll find all of the interested parties’ comments, as well as the official FCC communications in that docket. Additionally, the pro audio media is a good source of information and has covered these issues well. The Shure website and blog also will feature updates as they become available.

]]>http://blog.shure.com/the-incentive-auction-of-tv-broadcast-spectrum-an-update/feed/0Fantastic Scholastic 10: The Planning Phasehttp://blog.shure.com/fantastic-scholastic-10-the-planning-phase/
http://blog.shure.com/fantastic-scholastic-10-the-planning-phase/#commentsFri, 10 Jan 2014 16:26:37 +0000http://blog.shure.com/?p=13864What happens when you get a bunch of student recording engineers in a room with a band and a road case full of Shure mics?

I love hearing creative people think out loud, wrestling with the possibilities and limitations. So, my favorite part of this year’s first round of Fantastic Scholastic Recording Competition video diaries is watching the teams take the essence of a song and imagine the best instrumentation and recording setup for it. It’s also fun to see some of the incredible work spaces that are available to the students in their programs. We’re not the only ones with a lava lamp in our recording studio, apparently. And of course, how could I forget the Great Shure Mic Toss? (University of Denver, I’m looking at you.)

]]>http://blog.shure.com/fantastic-scholastic-10-the-planning-phase/feed/0The 2013 TEC Awards: And The Nominees Are…http://blog.shure.com/the-2013-tec-awards-and-the-nominees-are/
http://blog.shure.com/the-2013-tec-awards-and-the-nominees-are/#commentsThu, 02 Jan 2014 16:48:53 +0000http://blog.shure.com/?p=13708The Technical Excellence & Creativity Awards®, or TEC Awards, honor innovations in audio for recordings, live performances, film, TV, and beyond. Winners will be announced at The NAMM® Show in a few weeks, and we’re pretty stoked that three of our products were nominated.

The KSM9HS post has reviews, artist use cases, a short product walk-through video, frequency response and polar pattern diagrams, an interview with Soren Pedersen from the product team…the whole enchilada.

To get you up and running fast with GLX-D, we created a series of short videos called Getting Started with GLX-D Digital Wireless. They demonstrate the system’s basic functionality. Check them out here:

It wasn’t easy, but our in-house audio genius team managed to choose 10 winners from among all the entries to our Your Best Audio Hack Competition. Winners were chosen based on the following criteria: Does the hack work? Is it original? And is it repeatable? If the answer to all three was a resounding, “Eureka! YES!” then said hack entered the winners’ circle.

In no particular order, below are the 10 winning entries. Have you tried any of them before? What was your experience?

Hack #1: Simple Isolation for Voice-over

Any reasonably thick (1″ plus), reasonably sized (14″ x 16″) closed-cell foam packing material can be deftly utilized to create a far more “immediate” sound from your condenser microphone, such as a Shure KSM32, KSM42 or KSM44A, by simply cutting a four-inch slit into the center of the long dimension, and sliding it over the mic clip BEHIND the microphone capsule area. Coat hanger wire can be inserted if you want a custom curve ability. Works predictably and equals manufactured items designed for the same purpose. – Peter Bruce Wilder

Hack #2: SM57 vs. Drummer

After several SM57s were broken by drummers over the years, I found a solution to the problem. Looking through my sometime-I-may-need-this pile, I came across the corner edge guard used to protect wallpaper. Cutting a piece three inches long and cutting one end to a point, I placed it over the business end of the SM57 and simply gaff-taped it to the microphone. It has been in use for over three years as a snare mic, and no breaks. Added plus: it helps isolate the snare mic from the hi-hat. – Mike Smith

Hack #3: Low(est)-budget Mic

Growing up needing a microphone, I would take an old set of headphones and plug them into the mic jack. One of them would always pick up my voice well enough to sing through until I could save enough for a real mic. – Joshua Savage

Hack #4: Lights. Drums. Action!

Using a TRS plug, a 10K Ohm resistor, 2 red LEDs, and some wire, make the circuit as shown above. Plug this into the insert of a channel used for the kick drum. Place the LEDs so you can see them. This acts as a soft clipper for the kick. It’s great because you are able to use channel EQ after clipping. – David Hilderman

Hack #5: Testing 1, 2, 3

You can test the signal from any male XLR line or mic level output simply by touching the tip of a standard 1/8″ (3.5 mm) headphone jack to the middle and any other pin! Super-handy for checking boards and mult boxes! – Andrew Logan

Hack #6: Guitar Tuning with Headphones

Put a pair of headphones (Shure, of course) over the body of an acoustic guitar, as if the area near the bridge were your head. Let the padded cups rest on the soundboard and the back. Then, plug the headphones into your favorite tuner. Pluck a note, and the tuner lights up! Genius! The headphones are acting like a microphone and picking up the vibrations of the guitar. Now the drummer and bass player can still yack it up, talking loudly about the latest nonsense they’ve seen on YouTube, and you can go about tuning in peace. – David Cole

Hack #7: Instant Speaker Cable

Desperate for a speaker cable because yours is busted? Take an old extension cord and solder the old cable’s connectors to it. Fully capable of withstanding your high-powered speaker signal! – Aaron Scott Cronon

Hack #8: SM58® + Towel = Piano Mic?

If you need to mic a grand piano and have limited supplies, an SM58 will work excellently.

Unscrew the windscreen, and store in a safe place.

Wrap the microphone in a small bar or hand towel, leaving the mic element exposed.

Inside the curve of the grand (high end), tape the towel and mic bundle down to the soundboard of the piano with the element just over the second sound hole. Use gaffers tape.

Close the lid.

This will give you a nice balance of highs and lows and is excellent in emergency situations when the proper microphone is not available. – Marcel Graham

Hack #9: How Not To Burn Yourself Making Cables

Probably the handiest trick I ever learned was this: When making custom cables (or fixing broken ones), instead of trying to clamp the connecters in a vice, or clumsily hold them in your fingers (inevitably burning your digits on the soldering iron), an old di box works wonders to hold your connectors in place. Most di boxes will have jacks to hold your 1/4″ and XLR plugs stable, and in a workable position, leaving both your hands free to work with the cable and soldering iron, not to mention out of harm’s way from the soldering tip and molten metal. Disclaimer: There’s not usually much inside a di box to damage, but use an old or cheap one, just in case! – Andrew Stockley

Hack #10: Instant Omnidirectional Mic

If I’m in need of a omnidirectional mic, for a quick fix, I tape off the rejection area around the sides of an SM57, and I’m good to go. This had helped more times than I can count. – Scott Kuhn